2026:JHHC:25889 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.3685 of 2026 ------ Amit Kumar Pandey, S/o Vijay Kumar Pandey, R/o Ward No.4, Williams Town, Deoghar, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Pankaj Prasad Rana, S/o Vinod Rana, resident of Village Dhawatanr, P.O. Chihutiya, P.S. Hasdiha, District Dumka. … … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanat Kumar Jha, A.P.P. ----- 06/ 28.08.2026 Heard the parties. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Hansdiha P.S. Case No.50 of 2024, for offences under Sections 406/420 IPC. The case is presently pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka. 3. Earlier, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 24.04.2025 in A.B.A. No.2509 of 2025. On that occasion, this Court being not satisfied with the grounds taken by the Court below for rejecting the anticipatory bail of the petitioner, as the same was not considered on merits; disposed of that Anticipatory Bail Application by setting aside the order dated 21.11.2024 passed in A.B.P. No.329 of 2024, and remanding the matter back to the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Dumka, to hear the said A.B.P. on merit and dispose the same by passing a reasoned order as per law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the informant. This Court had also granted interim protection to the petitioner so that he would not be arrested till disposal of A.B.P. No.329 of 2024. 2026:JHHC:25889 2 4. The allegation against this petitioner is that he defrauded money from the informant on the pretext of selling a Tractor as per the wish of the informant, but he reneged from his promise after taking the money and tried to sell him the tractor of inferior quality. 5. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that a false case has been foisted against this petitioner. He submits that the informant was not ready to pay full consideration amount of the tractor, which was Rs.3,00,000/-, and he was intending to buy the tractor by paying only Rs.2,65,000/-, and when the petitioner tried to make him understand that it cannot be possible as the Company will not be ready to deliver the vehicle unless full payment is made; the informant got adamant and to take revenge, implicated the petitioner in this case. He also submits that the amount deposited by the informant has already been transferred in the account of Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Service Ltd., which suggests that the petitioner has not used the money of the informant for his personal gain, and he was only discharging his duties to the satisfaction of his employer and as such there is no question of breach of trust on part of this petitioner. He lastly submits that the petitioner is regularly appearing before the Investigating Officer. 6. Learned A.P.P. representing the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. 7. The opposite party has not appeared in spite of valid service of notice. 8. Considering the facts of this case and also the fact that there was some dispute between the parties in respect of full payment of price of the Tractor and it is merely a commercial transaction, which failed; and also considering the submission of petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner is regularly appearing before the Investigating Officer, I am inclined to allow this application. 9. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands allowed. The petitioner, above named, is directed to surrender 2026:JHHC:25889 3 before the learned court below within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on the event of his surrender or arrest, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka, in connection with Hansdiha P.S. Case No.50 of 2024, subject to the condition that one of the bailers should be a close relative of the petitioner and other should be a resident of State of Jharkhand, having sufficient landed property in his name or in the name of his ancestors in which he is having share and to that effect, he has to file an affidavit before the Trial Court indicating his share in the property. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 28th August, 2026 Prashant. Cp-3 Uploaded on 28.08.2026